IPPM G. Fioccola Internet-Draft K. Zhu Intended status: Informational Huawei Expires: 13 December 2026 T. Graf Swisscom L. Zhang China Mobile M. Nilo FiberCop 11 June 2026 Alternate Marking Deployment Framework draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-06 Abstract This document provides a framework for Alternate Marking deployment and includes considerations and guidance for the deployment of the methodology. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 December 2026. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 1] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. AltMark Deployment Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. AltMark Measurement Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Type of Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. AltMark Deployment Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. PCEP and BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Data Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. IPFIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. YANG-Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. Hybrid Two-Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.3. BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.4. MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.5. SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.6. NVO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Introduction The Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Clustered Alternate Marking [RFC9342] define the Alternate Marking technique that is a hybrid performance measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement methods. This method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets and it can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter on live traffic. The first experiments on Alternate-Marking were described in [RFC8321] and [RFC8889]. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 2] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 According to the definitions of [RFC7799], the Alternate-Marking Method can be classified as Hybrid Type I. Indeed, Alternate Marking can be implemented by using reserved bits in the protocol header, and the change in value of these marking bits at the source node is formally considered a modification of the stream of interest. This document complements [RFC9341] and [RFC9342] as it explains the mechanisms that can be used to manage and deploy the method. This document can be considered as the base document to deploy the Alternate Marking Method. There are three complementary documents to be considered for the manageability aspects: [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang], that defines the a YANG Data Model for the Alternate Marking Method for configuration; [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang], that defines an On-Path Telemetry YANG Data Model for notification; [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark], that defines IPFIX Alternate- Marking Information Elements. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 1.2. Terminology Abbreviations used in this document: AltMark: Alternate-Marking NMS: Network Management System IPv6: Internet Protocol version 6 SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6 dataplane BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching SFC: Service Function Chaining Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 3] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 NVO3: Network Virtualization Overlays IPFIX: IP Flow Information Export YANG: Yet Another Next Generation PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol BGP: Border Gateway Protocol 2. AltMark Deployment Domain The Alternate Marking Method MUST be deployed in a controlled domain for security and compatibility reasons. In this regard, [RFC8799] reports further examples of specific limited domain solutions. It is not common that the user traffic originates and terminates within the controlled domain. For this reason, it will typically only be applicable in an overlay network, where user traffic is encapsulated at one domain border, decapsulated at the other domain border and the encapsulation incorporates the relevant extension header for Alternate Marking. This requirement also implies that an implementation MUST filter packets that carry Alternate Marking data and are entering or leaving the controlled domain. A controlled domain is a managed network where it is required to select, monitor and control the access to the network by enforcing policies at the domain boundaries in order to discard undesired external packets entering the domain and check the internal packets leaving the domain. It does not necessarily mean that a controlled domain is a single administrative domain or a single organization. A controlled domain can correspond to a single administrative domain or can be composed by multiple administrative domains under a defined network management. Indeed, some scenarios may imply that the Alternate Marking Method involves more than one domain, but in these cases, it is RECOMMENDED that the multiple domains create a whole controlled domain while traversing the external domain by employing IPsec authentication and encryption or other VPN technology that provides full packet confidentiality and integrity protection. In a few words, it must be possible to control the domain boundaries and eventually use specific precautions if the traffic traverse the Internet. Note that, if there is a trust relationship between different entities, the controlled domain can still be considered. The different entities just need to agree on how to manage it in terms of configuration and reporting. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 4] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 The Alternate Marking measurement domain can overlap with the controlled domain or may be a subset of the controlled domain. The typical scenarios for the application of the Alternate Marking Method depend on the controlled domain boundaries, in particular: the user equipment can be the starting or ending node, only in case it is fully managed and if it belongs to the controlled domain. In this case the user generated packets contain the Alternate Marking data. But, in practice, this is not common due to the fact that the user equipment cannot be totally secured in the majority of cases. the CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) or the PE (Provider Edge) routers are most likely to be the starting or ending nodes since they can be border routers of the controlled domain. For instance, the CPE, which connects the user's premises with the service provider's network, belongs to a controlled domain only if it is managed by the service provider and if additional security measures are taken to keep it trustworthy. Typically the CPE or the PE can encapsulate a received packet in an outer header which contains the Alternate Marking data. They can also be able to filter and drop packets from outside of the domain with inconsistent fields to make effective the relevant security rules at the domain boundaries, for example a simple security check can be to insert the Alternate Marking data if and only if the destination is within the controlled domain. 3. AltMark Measurement Nodes An Alternate-Marking Domain consists of marking nodes, unmarking nodes, and transit nodes. A marking node, also called encapsulating node, incorporates the AltMark Data Fields into packets in order to enable Alternate- Marking. If the Alternate-Marking method is enabled for a selected flow of the traffic, the encapsulating node is responsible for applying the AltMark functionality to the selected flow and to take initial timestamps and packet counters. A transit node only reads AltMark Data Fields in order to take timestamps and packet counters. An unmarking node, also called decapsulating node, reads AltMark Data Fields in order to take final timestamps and packet counters and then removes any AltMark Data Fields from packets. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 5] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 Configuration Configuration Configuration Configuration and and and and Export of Export of Export of Export of AltMark data AltMark data AltMark data AltMark data | | | | | | | | | | | | User +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ packets |Marking | | Transit | | Transit | |Unmarking| -------->|Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|Node |--> | | | A | | B | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ Figure 1: Roles of Alternate-Marking Nodes 4. Type of Measurements The methodology described in the previous sections can be applied to various performance measurement problems. The only requirement is to select and mark the flow to be monitored; in this way, packets are batched by the sender, and each batch is alternately marked such that it can be easily recognized by the receiver. Either one or two flag bits might be available for marking in different deployments: One flag: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC9341], while delay measurement MUST be done according to the single-marking method described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC9341]. Mean delay (Section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC9341]) MAY also be used but it could imply more computational load. Two flags: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC9341], while delay measurement MUST be done according to double-marking method Section 3.2.2 of [RFC9341]. In this case single-marking MAY also be used in combination with double-marking and the two approaches provide slightly different pieces of information that can be combined to have a more robust data set. There are some operational guidelines to consider for the purpose of deciding to follow the recommendations above and use one or two flags. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 6] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 The Alternate-Marking method utilizes specific flags in the packet header, so an important factor is the number of flags available for the implementation. Indeed, if there is only one flag available there is no other way, while if two flags are available the option with two flags is certainly more complete. The duration of the Alternate-Marking period affects the frequency of the measurement and this is a parameter that can be decided on the basis of the required temporal sampling. But it cannot be freely chosen, as explained in Section 5 of [RFC9341]. The Alternate-Marking methodologies enable packet loss, delay and delay variation calculation, but in accordance with the method used (e.g. single-marking or double-marking), there is different kind of information that can be derived. For example, to get more statistics of extent data, the option with two flags is desirable. For this reason, the type of data needed in the specific scenario is an additional element to take into account. The Alternate-Marking methods imply different computational load depending on the method employed. Therefore, the available computational resources on the measurement points can also influence the choice. As an example, mean delay calculation may require more processing and it may not be the best option to minimize the computational load. A deployment of the Alternate-Marking Method should also take into account how to handle and recognize marked and unmarked traffic. Since Alternate-Marking normally employs a marking field which is dedicated, reserved, and included in a protocol extension, the measurement points can learn whether the measurement is activated or not by checking if the specific extension is included or not within the packets. 5. AltMark Deployment Framework Figure 2 shows an overview of the Alternate-Marking Deployment Framework, including Network Configuration and Data Collection functions, which can also be implemented in different systems. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 7] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 +----------------+ +---------------+ | | Network | | | Configuration | | | and | | | Data | | | Collection |-+ +---------------+ | | | | +---------------+-------+-------+---------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | User +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ packets |Marking | | Transit | | Transit | |Unmarking| -------->|Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|Node |--> | | | A | | B | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ Figure 2: Alternate-Marking Framework with Configuration and Data Export 6. Configuration Several mechanisms can be used for configuration and, in particular, YANG Model, PCEP and BGP. These are needed to signal and configure the parameters to identify the flow to monitor both in case of point- to-point flow and multipoint-to-multipoint flow. Indeed, the selection of the identification fields directly affects the type of paths that the flow would follow in the network. As an example, for IPv6 the setting of the Flow Monitoring Identification (FlowMonID) is used in combination with source and destination addresses to identify a flow, as described in Section 5.3 of [RFC9343], and it can be pseudo-randomly generated by the source node or assigned by the central controller. Additionally, other parameters are essential for the activation of the AltMark methodology: the choice between end-to-end or hop-by-hop measurement, the choice between the methods with one flag or two flags and the duration of the Alternate-Marking period which affects the measurement frequency (longer the duration of the block, the less frequently the measurement can be taken). Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 8] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 6.1. YANG Model The YANG model can be used for the definition of the AltMark data sent over network management protocols such as the NETCONF and RESTCONF. They can be used for configuring Alternate-Marking in network nodes that support it. An example of the Alternate-Marking YANG model is defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang]. 6.2. PCEP and BGP There are also other control plane mechanisms to advertise and activate AltMark capabilities, using PCEP and BGP: [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities], [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit], [I-D.he-idr-bgp-flowspec-ifit]. 7. Data Export Each packet marked for Alternate-Marking, as for example the AltMark IPv6 option type defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9343] or the Segment Routing TLV Type as defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9947] is counted or timestamped according to the method. The export of data can be done using the IPFIX or YANG push metering process depending which Network Telemetry [RFC9232] protocol is used to export the data. There are two options for the computation: The NMS acts as Collector. The loss and delay metrics are computed on the NMS by comparing the packet counts and timestamps at each AltMark period, according to the AltMark technique [RFC9341] [RFC9342]. The computation of loss and delay metrics can be done directly on the node, if we assume that the relevant counters and timestamps are carried with the packet and available on the node. According to [RFC9951], it is possible to export the delay performance metrics in IPFIX. Therefore, assuming we have the counter and timestamp information directly on the node, as enabled by [RFC9947], the delay can be computed on the router. When data are collected, packet counts and timestamps are reported to the collector, but a certain synchronization mechanism is required to ensure that the collected data is correlated properly. Therefore, the Period Number (PN) can be used to help to determine the packet counts related to the same block of markers, or the timestamps related to the same marked packet. The PN is generated each time a node reads the packet counts or timestamps, and is associated with each packet count and timestamp reported. The assumption is that the nodes are time synchronized as described in [RFC9341] and [RFC9342]. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 9] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 The PN can be calculated as the modulo of the local time (when the counts or timestamps are read) and the interval of the marking time period. Note that, in addition to IPFIX, YANG-Push and Hydrid Two-Step, which are reported below, it is also possible to employ gRPC, an open source Remote Procedure Call (RPC) framework for exporting telemetry data. 7.1. IPFIX For IPFIX [RFC7011], new Information Elements (IEs) for FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flag are needed so that the data can be aggregated according to the Alternate-Marking Method. The new IEs to export Alternate Marking measurement data are specified in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark]. The IPFIX entities, which are of interest to describe the relationship to the forwarding topology and the control-plane are further described in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark]. 7.2. YANG-Push For YANG-Push [RFC8641], periodic subscription as defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC8641] is used to subscribe data. [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang] introduces a YANG data model for monitoring Alternate-Marking telemetry data. Since the amount of observed data could overwhelm a router processor on a network node, publishing data from network processors as specified in [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] is advised. 7.3. Hybrid Two-Step Another option for collecting AltMark data can be the Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) approach, defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step]. It is a method of telemetry collection that separates the act of measuring the performance metric from collecting this information. A packet in the flow to which the AltMark method is applied can be used as an HTS Trigger, while the HTS Follow-up packet is then generated to collect the measurement data from the nodes, as further detailed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step]. 8. Encapsulations Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 10] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 8.1. IPv6 The Alternate-Marking encapsulation for IPv6 is defined in [RFC9343], which also discusses deployment considerations for IPv6 networks. The IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343] applies the Alternate Marking Method to IPv6, and defines an Extension Header Option to encode the Alternate Marking Method for both the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and the Destination Options Header. [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] defines extended data fields for the IPv6 AltMark Option and provides enhanced capabilities to overcome some challenges and enable future proof applications. It is worth mentioning that the enhanced capabilities are intended for further use and are optional. Other alternatives for the application of the Alternate-Marking Method to IPv6 are introduced in [I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement] and [I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-distributed-flow-measurement]. 8.2. SRv6 The Alternate-Marking encapsulation for SRv6 is discussed in IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343] and [RFC9947]. However, it is to be noted that [RFC9343] also applies to SRv6. While [RFC9947] is an alternative experimental approach and it uses an experimental TLV in the SRH. 8.3. BIER The Alternate-Marking encapsulation for BIER is introduced in [I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam]. 8.4. MPLS The Alternate-Marking application to MPLS has some options, as introduced in [RFC9571], [RFC9714], [I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm]. 8.5. SFC The Alternate-Marking encapsulation for SFC is introduced in [I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm]. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 11] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 8.6. NVO3 The Alternate-Marking encapsulation for NVO3 is introduced in [I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark]. 9. Operational Considerations This document aims to complement [RFC9341] and [RFC9342] in terms of operation and manageability of the methodology. Indeed, the previous sections cover the aspects related to configuration and data export. [RFC9341] and [RFC9342] already include some recommendations for deployment. Further details about the method operation are specified for the different extensions: IPv6 [RFC9343], SRH [RFC9947], and MPLS [RFC9714]. In a controlled domain, the nodes may support the AltMark specific encapsulation and this also depends on the implementation. If a node is configured to read the AltMark option, the measurement is done on that node, otherwise it is simply not considered in the measurement. Assuming that the measurement domain overlaps with the controlled domain, the procedure for AltMark data encapsulation can be summarized as follows: * Ingress Marking Node: the Ingress Node of a controlled domain that supports the Alternate Marking Method adds the AltMark data in the the data packets. * Intermediate Transit Node: if an Intermediate Node is not capable of processing the AltMark data, it simply ignores it. If an Intermediate Node is capable of processing the AltMark data, it processes it. * Egress Unmarking Node: The Egress Node is the last node of the controlled domain. The processing if the AltMark data is similar to the processing at the Intermediate Nodes. The only difference is that it needs to remove the AltMark data from the the data packets. All the nodes in the AltMark measurement domain can be configured using the YANG model in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang], while the data can be exported using IPFIX [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark] or the on-path telemetry YANG model [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 12] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 10. Security Considerations Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Clustered Alternate Marking [RFC9342] analyze different security concerns and related solutions. These aspects are valid and applicable also to this document. In particular the fundamental security requirement is that Alternate Marking MUST only be applied in a specific limited domain, as also mentioned in [RFC8799]. 11. IANA Considerations This document has no request to IANA. 12. Acknowledgements The authors of this document would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Chongfeng Xie, Xiao Min, Benoit Claise for their comments and reviews. 13. Contributors Tianran Zhou Huawei Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Mauro Cociglio Email: mauro.cociglio@outlook.com Fabio Bulgarella Telecom Italia Email: fabio.bulgarella@guest.telecomitalia.it Fabrizio Milan FiberCop Email: fabrizio.milan@fibercop.com 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 13] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341, DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022, . [RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342, DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022, . 14.2. Informative References [I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm] Cheng, W., Min, X., Gandhi, R., Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-08, 27 February 2026, . [I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark] Fioccola, G., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking in Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark-03, 23 October 2018, . [I-D.he-idr-bgp-flowspec-ifit] hexiaoming, X., Wang, A., Cheng, W., Dong, J., and X. Min, "BGP Extensions to Enable BGP FlowSpec based IFIT", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-he-idr-bgp-flowspec- ifit-03, 25 May 2026, . [I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam] Mirsky, G., Zheng, L., Chen, M., and G. Fioccola, "Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-16, 7 November 2024, . Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 14] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities] Fioccola, G., Pang, R., Wang, S., Decraene, B., Zhuang, S., and H. Wang, "Advertising In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) Capabilities in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-09, 17 April 2026, . [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit] Qin, F., Yuan, H., Yang, S., Zhou, T., and G. Fioccola, "BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit- 12, 17 April 2026, . [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang] Graf, T., Wang, M., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and X. Min, "A YANG Data Model for the Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang- 02, 2 January 2026, . [I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step] Mirsky, G., Lingqiang, W., Zhui, G., Song, H., and P. Thubert, "Hybrid Two-Step Performance Measurement Method", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-hybrid- two-step-06, 19 September 2025, . [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., and K. Zhu, "On-Path Telemetry YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-02, 2 January 2026, . [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Graf, T., and P. Francois, "Subscription to Notifications in a Distributed Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-19, 13 April 2026, . Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 15] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark] Graf, T., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and Y. Zhu, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-Marking Information Elements", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-05, 27 February 2026, . [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit] Yuan, H., 王雪荣, Yang, P., Li, W., and G. Fioccola, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to Enable IFIT", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ifit-08, 2 January 2026, . [I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm] Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH) Domain", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mfm-ippm- sfc-nsh-pmamm-00, 1 April 2022, . [I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-distributed-flow-measurement] Wang, H., Li, J., Lin, C., Min, X., and G. Mirsky, "Distributed Flow Measurement in IPv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-distributed-flow- measurement-06, 29 December 2024, . [I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement] Li, J., Li, Z., Lin, C., Min, X., and G. Mirsky, "Flow Measurement in IPv6 Network", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement-10, 12 January 2026, . [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., Liu, Y., Pang, R., Xiong, L., Lee, S., Cociglio, M., and W. Li, "Enhanced Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zhou- ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-19, 5 June 2026, . Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 16] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, . [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, May 2016, . [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, January 2018, . [RFC8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641, September 2019, . [RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020, . [RFC8889] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto, "Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8889, DOI 10.17487/RFC8889, August 2020, . [RFC9232] Song, H., Qin, F., Martinez-Julia, P., Ciavaglia, L., and A. Wang, "Network Telemetry Framework", RFC 9232, DOI 10.17487/RFC9232, May 2022, . [RFC9343] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R. Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022, . [RFC9571] Bryant, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Chen, M., Fioccola, G., and G. Mirsky, "Extension of RFC 6374-Based Performance Measurement Using Synonymous Flow Labels", RFC 9571, DOI 10.17487/RFC9571, May 2024, . Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 17] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 [RFC9714] Cheng, W., Ed., Min, X., Ed., Zhou, T., Dai, J., and Y. Peleg, "Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9714, DOI 10.17487/RFC9714, February 2025, . [RFC9947] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Mishra, G., Wang, X., Zhang, G., and M. Cociglio, "Application of the Alternate-Marking Method to the Segment Routing Header", RFC 9947, DOI 10.17487/RFC9947, March 2026, . [RFC9951] Graf, T., Claise, B., and A. Huang-Feng, "Export of Delay Performance Metrics in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 9951, DOI 10.17487/RFC9951, April 2026, . Authors' Addresses Giuseppe Fioccola Huawei Viale Martesana, 12 20055 Vimodrone (Milan) Italy Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com Keyi Zhu Huawei 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: zhukeyi@huawei.com Thomas Graf Swisscom Binzring 17 CH-8045 Zurich Switzerland Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com Lin Zhang China Mobile Email: zhanglin1@cmdi.chinamobile.com Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 18] Internet-Draft alternate-marking-deployment June 2026 Massimo Nilo FiberCop Email: massimo.nilo@fibercop.com Fioccola, et al. Expires 13 December 2026 [Page 19]